It's like you didn't even bother reading my post. I did give an actual reason why. You ignored it just like you think I am ignoring you. We are even now.
I stand by my opinion and I understand the situation well. I DO NOT SUPPORT PROSPECTS WHO HAVE BEEN DRAFTED WHERE TEAMS WANT TO SIGN THEM BUT THE PROSPECT DECIDES TO SCREW THEM OVER AND CHOOSE THEIR OWN TEAMS. THE PROSPECT HAS EARNED NOTHING IN TERMS OF OTHER NHL PLAYERS WHO GO THROUGH THE ELC WITH THE TEAM THAT DRAFTS THEM AND THEN THE 7 YEARS OF RFA.
I bolded it for you so you can jump to my actual reason. I don't care if you agree or not. It's my reason and it's explained.
You want to talk about fairness? What about respect for a player like Tavares (and the other 99% of players) who would of liked to play for Toronto (or whatever team they prefer) from day 1 but respected who drafted him and paid his dues and played out his 7 RFA years. What about those players who are not selfish? Why are we leaving the door open for selfish players like Fox to dictate the team he wants to play for as a free agent where he has done nothing to earn free agent status
I explain a solution to all your comments in previous posts. Not going to do it again cause you will just ignore it and say I didn't prove a actual reason which is a JOKE! Force a player into a contract? Well he has to sign within ELC rules of the CBA. As I stated several times before, if the team low balls a ELC with no bonus structure, the player should have the right to have a arbitrator involved. Your fairness narrative has been resolved. Next?
Please find where I used the word fairness in my post. I didn't. It has nothing to do with what I said.
1) Tavares has nothing to do with what other players choose to do with their lives.
2) If owners put a limit on a team's rights to a team, a player isn't "screwing over" anyone if he does what he is explicitly allowed to do by the contract drawn up by the NHL owners and the NHLPA.
3) Saying why you personally don't support something is not the same as making a case why another person should have less liberty. You don't support someone choosing what they want to do. I get it. That's not the same thing. I'll give you an example of what I'm talking about: A public school has a compelling reason to lock it's doors and require visitors to check-in at the office before entering, even though it's public property. The compelling reason is of course the safety of the students and staff. We accept that it's ok to make people sign in.
We accept that it's not good for the health of a sports league to have players enter through the league as purely free agents (though the NHL and MLB were run that way for many many years). The reason being that we recognize that this would hurt parity, a lack of parity would hurt member teams. When a league has a number of poor teams with no hope, the quality of the whole league suffers as a product. Thus there is a reason to restrict the liberty to just enter the league at 18 as a free agent. Thus we have a draft, with rules. We have agreed upon rules about how long a team owns a players rights BECAUSE the league recognizes there IS NO COMPELLING REASON for a team to keep a player's rights FOREVER.
I get that you don't like that. But why in the world should the NHL, the owners, the players, the NHLPA, drafted players, coaches, fans, hot dog sellers at the arenas, or broadcasters give 2 cents about what you personally like?
CAR traded for an asset: The rights to a player. They knew they had that player's rights for 2 years. Had that player retired, gotten hurt, become a lumberjack or just plain sucked, they would have lost that asset. They didn't actually get a human being in that trade. They got 2 year negotiating rights.
1 of those years is up. They may decide that they can trade that same asset for something else or they might let that asset lose its value completely.
Everyday humans make decisions that might work out or might not. We don't get guarantees or warranties on every decision we make. We are adults. There is risk and reward.
Live with it.